DOCSLIB.ORG

Riverdale Mills Hydroelectric Project Docket No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Riverdale Mills Hydroelectric Project Docket No ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Riverdale Mills Hydroelectric Project Docket No. P-9100-040 Massachusetts Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 December 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................ v 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 APPLICATION .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER ......................................... 1 1.2.1 Purpose of Action .......................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Need for Power .............................................................................................. 3 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ................................. 4 1.3.1 Federal Power Act ......................................................................................... 4 1.3.2 Clean Water Act ............................................................................................ 4 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act ................................................................................ 5 1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ..................................................................... 6 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................... 6 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT ................................................................ 7 1.4.1 Scoping .......................................................................................................... 7 1.4.2 Interventions .................................................................................................. 7 1.4.3 Comments on the Application ....................................................................... 7 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ................................................. 8 2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................ 8 2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities .............................................................................. 8 2.1.2 Existing Project Boundary .......................................................................... 10 2.1.3 Project Safety .............................................................................................. 11 2.1.4 Existing Project Operation .......................................................................... 11 2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL ............................................................................. 12 2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities .......................................................................... 12 2.2.2 Proposed Operation and Environmental Measures ..................................... 12 2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................... 12 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 14 2.4.1 Project Decommissioning ........................................................................... 14 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 15 3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN ...................................... 15 3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS ........................................ 16 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ............................... 17 3.3.1 Aquatic Resources ....................................................................................... 17 3.3.2 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................................... 31 3.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................... 36 3.3.4 Land Use and Recreation ............................................................................ 37 3.3.5 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................... 41 i 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS .................................................................... 47 4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT .......................... 47 4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................. 49 4.2.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................. 49 4.2.2 Riverdale Power’s Proposal ........................................................................ 50 4.2.3 Staff Alternative .......................................................................................... 50 4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES .................................................. 50 5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 54 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................................ 54 5.1.1 Measures Proposed by Riverdale Power ..................................................... 55 5.1.2 Additional Measures Recommended by Staff ............................................. 55 5.1.3 Measures Not Recommended ...................................................................... 60 5.1.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 62 5.2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ......................................................... 62 5.3 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 63 5.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ..................................... 65 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .................................................... 66 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................................... 67 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................... 71 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the Riverdale Mills Project and other FERC-licensed hydroelectric projects and exemptions on the Blackstone River. (Source: staff). ................... 2 Figure 2. Riverdale Mills Hydroelectric Project facilities (Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 2017, as modified by staff). ................................................................... 9 Figure 3. Photograph of the Riverdale Mills Project dam. (Source: Blackstone Heritage Corridor, undated). ............................................................................................ 29 Figure 4. Contributing Resources to the Blackstone Canal Historic District (Source: Staff). ................................................................................................................ 45 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. FERC-licensed and exempted projects on the Blackstone River. ...................... 16 Table 2. Summary of flow and habitat data for the Riverdale Project ............................. 23 Table 3. Amount of suitable habitat for fish species at a range of flows in the bypassed reach. ................................................................................................................. 24 Table 4. Parameters for economic analysis of the Riverdale Mills Project. .................... 48 Table 5. Summary of the annual cost of alternative power and annual project cost for the three alternatives for the Riverdale Mills Project. ............................................ 49 Table 6. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement measures considered in assessing the effects of operating the Riverdale Mills Project. ........................ 50 Table 7. Analysis of fish and wildlife agency recommendations for the Riverdale Mills Project. .............................................................................................................. 63 iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS APE area of potential effect certification water quality certification C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission CWA Clean Water Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act DO dissolved oxygen EA environmental assessment EFH essential fish habitat ESA Endangered Species Act °F degree Fahrenheit FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FPA Federal Power Act fps feet per second FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interior U.S. Department of the Interior IPaC U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation kW kilowatt Massachusetts DEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Massachusetts DFW Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Massachusetts SHPO Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer mg/L milligrams per liter msl mean sea level MWh megawatt-hours National Register National Register of Historic Places NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Views of the Blackstone River and the Mumford River
    THE SHlNER~ AND ITS USE AS A SOURCE OF INCOME IN WORCESTER, AND SOUTHEASTERN WORCESTER COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS By Robert William Spayne S.B., State Teachers College at Worcester, Massachusetts 19,3 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Oberlin College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Geography CONTENTS Ie INTRODUCTION Location of Thesis Area 1 Purpose of Study 1 Methods of Study 1 Acknowledgments 2 II. GEOGRAPHY OF SOUTHERN WORCESTER COUNTY 4 PIiYSICAL GEOGRAPHY 4 Topography 4 stream Systems 8 Ponds 11 Artificial 11 Glacial 12 Ponds for Bait Fishing 14 .1 oJ Game Fishing Ponds 15 Climatic Characteristics 16 Weather 18 POPULATION 20 Size of Population 20 Distribution of Population 21 Industrialization 22 III. GEOGRAPHICAL BASIS FOR TEE SHINER INDUSTRY 26 Recreational Demands 26 Game Fish Resources 26 l~umber of ;Ponds 28 Number of Fishermerf .. 29 Demand for Bait 30 l IV. GENERAL NATURE OF THE BAIT INDUSTRY 31 ,~ Number of Bait Fishermen 31 .1 Range in Size of Operations 32 Nature of Typical Operations 34 Personality of the Bait Fishermen 34 V. THE SHINER - ITS DESCRIPTION, HABITS AND , CHARACTERISTICS 35 VI. 'STANDARD AND IlIIlPROVISED EQUIPMENT USED IN .~ THE IhllUSTRY 41 Transportation 41 Keeping the Bait Alive 43 Foul Weather Gear 47 Types of Nets 48 SUCCESSFUL METHODS USED IN NETTING BAIT 52 Open Water Fishing 5'2 " Ice Fishing 56 .-:-) VII. ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF THE SHINER INDUSTRY ~O VIII. FUTURE OUTLOOK FOR THE SHINER INDUSTRY 62 IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY 69 x. APPENDIX 72 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Following Page .
    [Show full text]
  • Route 140 Corridor Study and Plan.3 General
    ROOUTEUTE 114040 COORRIDORRRIDOR PLLANAN SShrewsburyhrewsbury SStreettreet BBoylston,oylston, MMassachusettsassachusetts Prepared for: Town of Boylston, Massachusetts Blatman, Bobrowski, and Mead, LLC Prepared by: Community Opportunities Group, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts March 2010 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................1 Key Findings .......................................................................................................................................................................1 Key Recommendations......................................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................................3 Population and Household Characteristics ....................................................................................................................4 Industries and Employment .............................................................................................................................................7 Economic Development Capacity & Resources.............................................................................................................9 CORRIDOR PLANNING AREA .....................................................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Waterbody Name Lat Long Location Town Stage Ruler Rationale Number # Subwatershed A-01-01-010 BB010 No Beaver Brook Beaver Brook Jewish Comm
    Master Site List 2007 Site Rev. Site Watershed CWF Waterbody Name Lat Long Location Town Stage Ruler Rationale Number # Subwatershed A-01-01-010 BB010 No Beaver Brook Beaver Brook Jewish Comm. 42.29549 -71.83817 On footbridge located south of Worcester On footbridge Baseline near beginning Ctr. northerly driveway at 633 of Beaver Brook Salisbury St. at the Jewish Community Center A-01-01-030 BB030 No Beaver Brook Beaver Brook Park Ave. 42.25028 -71.83142 Upstream of confluence of Worcester On abutment on To compare with Carwash Beaver Brook and Tatnuck south side of street Tatnuck Brook just Brook at Clark Fields carwash on above confluence Park Ave. A-02-01-010 BMB010 No Broad Meadow Broad Meadow Dunkirk 42.24258 -71.77599 At end of Dunkirk Ave, slightly Worcester Baseline where brook Brook Brook downstram of culvert. outfalls from culvert A-02-01-020 BMB020 No Broad Meadow Broad Meadow Dupuis Ave. 42.23554 -71.77297 Walk around lawn. Just before Worcester To monitor impacts of Brook Brook Beaver Brook enters pipe 50' Beaver Dam - see how upstream of pipe. quality improves after going through natural area A-02-01-040 BMB040 No Broad Meadow Broad Meadow Holdridge 42.23092 -71.76782 Downstream of stone bridge on Worcester 15 feet below Midway on course Brook Brook Holdridge Trail - on the west stone bridge on through wildlife sanctuary bank tree A-02-01-050 BMB050 No Broad Meadow Broad Meadow Dosco 42.19267 -71.75017 Beside Dosco Sheet Metal Millbury Attached to Dorothy Brook as it flows Brook Brook Company; 30 yards downstream concrete wall into the Blackstone River from Grafton St.
    [Show full text]
  • Outdoor Recreation Recreation Outdoor Massachusetts the Wildlife
    Photos by MassWildlife by Photos Photo © Kindra Clineff massvacation.com mass.gov/massgrown Office of Fishing & Boating Access * = Access to coastal waters A = General Access: Boats and trailer parking B = Fisherman Access: Smaller boats and trailers C = Cartop Access: Small boats, canoes, kayaks D = River Access: Canoes and kayaks Other Massachusetts Outdoor Information Outdoor Massachusetts Other E = Sportfishing Pier: Barrier free fishing area F = Shorefishing Area: Onshore fishing access mass.gov/eea/agencies/dfg/fba/ Western Massachusetts boundaries and access points. mass.gov/dfw/pond-maps points. access and boundaries BOAT ACCESS SITE TOWN SITE ACCESS then head outdoors with your friends and family! and friends your with outdoors head then publicly accessible ponds providing approximate depths, depths, approximate providing ponds accessible publicly ID# TYPE Conservation & Recreation websites. Make a plan and and plan a Make websites. Recreation & Conservation Ashmere Lake Hinsdale 202 B Pond Maps – Suitable for printing, this is a list of maps to to maps of list a is this printing, for Suitable – Maps Pond Benedict Pond Monterey 15 B Department of Fish & Game and the Department of of Department the and Game & Fish of Department Big Pond Otis 125 B properties and recreational activities, visit the the visit activities, recreational and properties customize and print maps. mass.gov/dfw/wildlife-lands maps. print and customize Center Pond Becket 147 C For interactive maps and information on other other on information and maps interactive For Cheshire Lake Cheshire 210 B displays all MassWildlife properties and allows you to to you allows and properties MassWildlife all displays Cheshire Lake-Farnams Causeway Cheshire 273 F Wildlife Lands Maps – The MassWildlife Lands Viewer Viewer Lands MassWildlife The – Maps Lands Wildlife Cranberry Pond West Stockbridge 233 C Commonwealth’s properties and recreation activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Card for 2009 Monitoring Season Map # Waterbody Site Location Town Aesthetics Temp
    Blackstone River Coalition Watershed-wide Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Program Report Card for 2009 Monitoring Season map # WaterBody Site Location Town Aesthetics Temp. DO % Sat. Nutrients HEADWATERS TRIBUTARIES 1 Kettle Brook Stafford Street Worcester KEY TO COLOR 2 Dark Brook Auburn High Auburn CODES 3 Tatnuck Brook*cwf VFW-south Worcester 4 Tatnuck Brook*cwf Park Ave. Worcester Excellent 5 WSC Stream Worcester State College Worcester Good 6 Leesville Pond Leesville inflow Auburn Fair 7 Leesville Pond Leesville outflow Worcester Poor 8 Beaver Brook Jewish Community Center Worcester Not Enough Data 9 Beaver Brook Park Ave. Carwash Worcester 10 Middle River St. John's Cemetery Worcester Categories 11 Ararat Brook*cwf Ford Brook Worcester (Each category is 12 Delaney Brook Delaney Brook Worcester derived from the 13 Salisbury Pond Salisbury Pond East Worcester combination of the 14 Salisbury Pond Salisbury Pond West Worcester following factors ) 15 Broad Meadow Brook Dunkirk Worcester 16 Broad Meadow Brook Dupuis Worcester Aesthetics - turbidity, 17 Broad Meadow Brook Holdridge Worcester water appearance, 18 Broad Meadow Brook Knollwood Millbury water odor & visual 19 Broad Meadow Brook Dosco Millbury assesments 20 Cold Spring Brook*cwf Hatchery Road Sutton Temp. - temperature 21 Quinsigamond River Rte 140 Grafton DO - dissolved 22 Quinsigamond River Wheeler Road Grafton oxygen 23 Quinsigamond River Pleasant Street Grafton % Sat. - dissolved 24 Coal Mine Brook*cwf Plantation Street Worcester oxygen % saturation 25 Poor Farm Brook*cwf Roberto Clemente Worcester Nutrients - nitrate & 26 Sewall Brook*cwf School Street Boylston orthophospate 27 Sewall Brook*cwf Holden Street Shrewsbury 28 Tilly Brook Vinny Testa's Shrewsbury 29 Bummitt Brook Pratts Pond Grafton 30 Singletary Brook Sycamore Circle Millbury DRAFT February 2010 *cwf = designated cold water fishery 1 Blackstone River Coalition Watershed-wide Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Program Report Card for 2009 Monitoring Season map # WaterBody Site Location Town Aesthetics Temp.
    [Show full text]
  • Bristol County, Massachusetts (All Jurisdictions)
    VOLUME 1 OF 5 BRISTOL COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS (ALL JURISDICTIONS) COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER ACUSHNET, TOWN OF 250048 NEW BEDFORD, CITY OF 255216 ATTLEBORO, CITY OF 250049 NORTH ATTLEBOROUGH, TOWN OF 250059 BERKLEY, TOWN OF 250050 NORTON, TOWN OF 250060 DARTMOUTH, TOWN OF 250051 RAYNHAM, TOWN OF 250061 DIGHTON, TOWN OF 250052 REHOBOTH, TOWN OF 250062 EASTON, TOWN OF 250053 SEEKONK, TOWN OF 250063 FAIRHAVEN, TOWN OF 250054 SOMERSET, TOWN OF 255220 FALL RIVER, CITY OF 250055 SWANSEA, TOWN OF 255221 FREETOWN, TOWN OF 250056 TAUNTON, CITY OF 250066 MANSFIELD, TOWN OF 250057 WESTPORT, TOWN OF 255224 REVISED: JULY 6, 2021 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 25005CV001D Version Number 2.6.3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1 Page SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The National Flood Insurance Program 1 1.2 Purpose of this Flood Insurance Study Report 2 1.3 Jurisdictions Included in the Flood Insurance Study Project 2 1.4 Considerations for using this Flood Insurance Study Report 5 SECTION 2.0 – FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 16 2.1 Floodplain Boundaries 16 2.2 Floodways 26 2.3 Base Flood Elevations 27 2.4 Non-Encroachment Zones 27 2.5 Coastal Flood Hazard Areas 27 2.5.1 Water Elevations and the Effects of Waves 28 2.5.2 Floodplain Boundaries and BFEs for Coastal Areas 29 2.5.3 Coastal High Hazard Areas 30 2.5.4 Limit of Moderate Wave Action 31 SECTION 3.0 – INSURANCE APPLICATIONS 32 3.1 National Flood Insurance Program Insurance Zones 32 SECTION 4.0 – AREA STUDIED 33 4.1 Basin Description 33 4.2 Principal Flood Problems 33 4.3 Non-Levee
    [Show full text]
  • Downloadable PDF File
    Publication No. 171 The Massachusetts Acid Rain Monitoring Project: Ten Years of Monitoring Massachusetts Lakes and Streams with Volunteers. by Paul J. Godfrey Mark D. Mattson Marie-Françoise Walk Peter A. Kerr O.Thomas Zajicek Armand Ruby III The Massachusetts Acid Rain Monitoring Project: Ten Years of Monitoring Massachusetts Lakes and Streams with Volunteers. by Paul J. Godfrey Mark D. Mattson Marie-Françoise Walk Peter A. Kerr O.Thomas Zajicek Armand Ruby III November 1996 Abstract Between 1983 and 1985, the Acid Rain Monitoring (ARM) Project used as many as 1000 citizen volunteers to collect and help analyze more than 40,000 samples from 2444 lakes and 1670 streams, respectively 87% and 69% of the named lakes and streams in the state, and monitored a representative 453 randomly selected and 119 special interest lakes and streams for eight successive years (1985-1993) with approximately 300 volunteers. This report details the organizational effort that permitted maintenance of this ten year effort, the quality control efforts needed to insure that resulting data met scientific standards for quality, and the findings of ten years of extensive monitoring. Results for the nearly comprehensive initial phases of the project show that 5.5% of lakes and streams in Massachusetts are acidified (pH < 5.0 and ANC < 0 µeq/l); 57.4% were sufficiently low in acid neutralizing capacity to be considered threatened by acid deposition (0<ANC<200 µeq/l); and 37.1% were not threatened (ANC > 200 µeq/l). Spring samples contained an average of 45% more H+ (pH 6.44 vs 6.60) and 32% less ANC (257 vs 376 µeq/l) than fall samples.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Real Property Owned and Leased by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office for Administration and Finance Report on the Real Property Owned and Leased by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Published February 15, 2019 Prepared by the Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance Carol W. Gladstone, Commissioner This page was intentionally left blank. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Report Organization 5 Table 1 Summary of Commonwealth-Owned Real Property by Executive Office 11 Total land acreage, buildings (number and square footage), improvements (number and area) Includes State and Authority-owned buildings Table 2 Summary of Commonwealth-Owned Real Property by County 17 Total land acreage, buildings (number and square footage), improvements (number and area) Includes State and Authority-owned buildings Table 3 Summary of Commonwealth-Owned Real Property by Executive Office and Agency 23 Total land acreage, buildings (number and square footage), improvements (number and area) Includes State and Authority-owned buildings Table 4 Summary of Commonwealth-Owned Real Property by Site and Municipality 85 Total land acreage, buildings (number and square footage), improvements (number and area) Includes State and Authority-owned buildings Table 5 Commonwealth Active Lease Agreements by Municipality 303 Private leases through DCAMM on behalf of state agencies APPENDICES Appendix I Summary of Commonwealth-Owned Real Property by Executive Office 311 Version of Table 1 above but for State-owned only (excludes Authorities) Appendix II County-Owned Buildings Occupied by Sheriffs and the Trial Court 319 Appendix III List of Conservation/Agricultural/Easements Held by the Commonwealth 323 Appendix IV Data Sources 381 Appendix V Glossary of Terms 385 Appendix VI Municipality Associated Counties Index Key 393 3 This page was intentionally left blank.
    [Show full text]
  • Trout Stocked Waters Central District
    2021 MASSACHUSETTS TROUT STOCKED WATERS CENTRAL DISTRICT Daily stocking updates can be viewed at Mass.gov/Trout. All listed waters are stocked in the spring. Bold waters are stocked in spring and fall. ASHBURNHAM: Phillips Brook, Whitman River HOLDEN: Asnebumskit Brook, Quinapoxet River, Trout Brook, Trout Brook ATHOL: Ellinwood Brook, Millers River, Silver Lake, West Brook HOPEDALE: Hopedale Pond, Mill River BARRE: Burnshirt River, Canesto Brook, East Branch HUBBARDSTON: Asnacomet Pond, Burnshirt River, Ware River, Prince River, Ware River Canesto Brook, East Branch Ware River, Joslin Brook, Natty Pond Brook, West Branch Ware River BERLIN: Assabet River LANCASTER: Fort Pond, Spectacle Pond BLACKSTONE: Mill River LEOMINSTER: Barretts Pond, Crow Hills Pond BOYLSTON: Wachusett Reservoir LUNENBURG: Lake Whalom, Mulpus Brook BROOKFIELD: Quacumquasit (South) Pond MENDON: Mill River CHARLTON: Little River, Snow Pond MILFORD: Louisa Lake, Mill River CLINTON: Lancaster Millpond, Mossy Pond MILLBURY: Singletary Pond DOUGLAS: Mumford River, Wallum Lake NEW BRAINTREE: Ware River EAST BROOKFIELD: Sevenmile River NORTHBOROUGH: Assabet River FITCHBURG: Fallulah Brook, Phillips Brook NORTHBRIDGE: West River GARDNER: Dunn Pond, Kendall Pond, Otter River, Perley Brook Reservoir OAKHAM: Parkers Brook GRAFTON: Quinsigamond River OXFORD: Carbuncle Pond, French River, Little River HARDWICK: Hardwick Pond, Moose Brook, Quabbin PETERSHAM: Connor Pond, East Branch Swift River, Reservoir, Ware River Quabbin Reservoir, West Branch Fever Brook MASS.GOV/TROUT PRINCETON:
    [Show full text]
  • Open PDF File, 715.65 KB, for Blackstone River
    Technical Memorandum TM-51-10 BLACKSTONE RIVER WATERSHED 2003 DWM WATER QUALITY MONITORING DATA May 2005 Stella D. Tamul Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Division of Watershed Management DWM Control Number CN 240.1 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Robert Golledge Jr., Commissioner Bureau of Resource Protection Division of Watershed Management Glenn Haas, Director Blackstone River Watershed 2003-2007 Water Quality Assessment Report Appendix B B1 51ABdoc DWM CN240.0 Table of Contents Introduction Project Objectives Study Area Description Quality Assurance and Quality Control Field and Analytical Methods Station Observations Survey Conditions Water Quality Data References List of Tables and Figures Table 1: MA DEP DWM 2003 Blackstone River Watershed Water Quality Sampling Station Descriptions Table 2: WES Analytical Methods and Detection Limits Table 3: 2003 Precipitation data summaries for MAD EP DWM surveys for Worcester, MA Table 4: USGS Gage Data Summaries in the Blackstone River Watershed for the 2003 MA DEP DWM Surveys Table 5: 2003 MA DEP Blackstone River Watershed in-situ multiprobe Data Table 6: 2003 MA DEP Blackstone River Watershed Instream Physico/Chemical and Bacteria Data Table 7: Blackstone River Watershed Quality Control Data-Blanks Table 8: Blackstone River Quality Control Data-Duplicates Figure 1: MA DEP, DWM 2003 Water Quality Monitoring Station Locations in the Blackstone River Watershed Figure 1a: Kettle Brook, Beaver Brook, Dark Brook, Middle River, Unnamed Tributary “Mill Brook”, and the Blackstone River DWM 2003 Water Quality Monitoring Station Locations. Figure 1b: Quinsigamond River, Blackstone River, West River, and Mill River DWM 2003 Water Quality Monitoring Station Locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources of Massachusetts (-G---+
    Water Resources of Massachusetts (-G---+ U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4144 Prepared in cooperation with the ’ ~ALTHOF.~SSACHUSETTS . DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, DIVISION 6~ WATER RESOURCES WATER RESOURCES OF MASSACHUSETTS By Alison C. Simcox U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4144 Prepared in cooperation with the COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, DMSION OF WATER RESOURCES Boston, Massachusetts 1992 i . L U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can he write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division Books and Open-File Reports Section U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center, Bldg 8 10 Massachusetts - Rhode Island District Box 25425 28 Lord Rd., Suite 280 Denver, Colorado 80225 Marlborough, MA 01752 . -1 CONTENTS Page Abstract ..................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................. 1 PurposeandScope ......................................................... 1 Physiographic setting ....................................................... 2 Glacialhistory ............................................................. 2 Geohydrologic setting .......................................................... 2 Hydrologiccycle .............................................................. 4 Surfacewater
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 River Monitoring Report
    Blackstone River Water Quality Monitoring Program 2019 Sampling Season Report Prepared for Karla Sangrey, Director Upper Blackstone Clean Water by Marie-Françoise Hatte and Cameron Richards Massachusetts Water Resources Research Center University of Massachusetts October 8, 2020 Acknowledgements The UMass Amherst Water Resources Research Center (WRRC) wishes to thank the staff of both the Upper Blackstone Clean Water (Upper Blackstone) and the Narragansett Bay Commission (NBC). Funding for the work was provided by the Upper Blackstone under the oversight of Karla Sangrey. Upper Blackstone laboratory staff assist with sampling collection, run several of the laboratory analyses on collected samples, and generously share their laboratory space on sampling days. Special thanks go to Upper Blackstone staff Timothy Loftus, Sharon Lawson, Denise Prouty, Cindy D’Alessandro, Ornela Piluri, Rick Vaudry, and Devon Avery. NBC coordinates their riverine sampling with our crews, enabling co- collection of samples for comparison, and shares their results. Special thanks go to NBC staff Eliza Moore, Bekki Songolo, Jeff Tortorella, Jim Kelly, John Motta, Karen Cortes, and Sara Nadeau. The UMass Dartmouth (UMD) School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) lab completes analysis of the nitrogen series. Special thanks go to UMD staff Sara Horvet and director David Schlezinger. Cameron Richards led WRRC fieldwork and sample analysis with the assistance of Haena Jung. Data entry was facilitated by Faith Lawless. Thanks also go to Travis Drury who helped us transition to working without his knowledge and expertise. Without the support of these organizations and individuals this work would not be possible. Authors: Marie-Françoise Hatte and Cameron Richards Massachusetts Water Resources Research Center Available online at: http://wrrc.umass.edu/wrrc-publications/recent-publications Suggested citation: Massachusetts Water Resources Research Center, 2020 Blackstone River Water Quality Monitoring Program 2019 Sampling Season Report.
    [Show full text]